OK, learning from the Leskovic situation, the rules updates for turn 40 will be kept in a seperate thread until they become "official" - these will be edited into the main thread once turn 40 starts.
Please feel free to post here with questions/comments if you see anything broken or if anything doesn't make sense.
Resource RaidsDelete the text in red. Add the underlined text.QuoteResource Raid
Type: Raid
Effect: If successful, the raiders steal the RP output of the hex for the current turn RP equal to the maximum RP output of the hex, or the total FP of the raiding force, whichever is less.
Concurrent with the revision to the resource raid rules, Errata #31 (listed below) is abolished.
QuoteErrata: No faction can loose more than 50% of it's income to raids.
Nuclear WeaponsAdd the following text to the rules:
QuoteNuclear Weapons
Construction and deployment of nuclear weapons
Nuclear weapons are constructed at PF hex improvements and at capital worlds. Nuclear weapons are abstractly represented with asterisk (*) tokens. Each nuclear armament token costs 25 RP to produce and requires one turn; maximum production output is one asterisk per turn, per PF (or one per turn, if a faction has no PFs).
Nuclear weapons tokens can be stockpiled at any capital world, PF, or Clan homeworld zone (stockpiles must be noted and tracked on the orders sheet). Nuclear weapons tokens can be moved from stockpiles to eligible units at a cost of 5 MP per hex per token per the rules for transported units. A nuclear weapon token must end its turn either in an eligible stockpile location or an eligible unit.
Units eligible to carry nuclear tokens are:
- Galaxies (or larger Clan formations)
- Regiments (or larger Clan formations)
- Mobile aerospace flotillas
- WarShips
No more than five tokens can be carried by any one unit at a time.
If one or more nuclear weapons tokens are stockpiled on a world when it is captured, the tokens are automatically captured by the conquering faction.
Using nuclear weapons in combat
Any force equipped with nuclear weapons may spend nuclear weapons tokens to gain additional bonuses in combat.
Tokens may be spent to achieve any of the following effects:
- Inflict 2d6 FP of damage on an enemy force before simple resolution results are applied
- Use one nuclear weapon in MegaMek combat
- Attack an enemy hex element (as per the "Sabotage Hex Element" intelligence mission)
- Force a single WarShip to make a survival roll; if the roll fails the ship is destroyed even if not enough FP damage was inflicted to sink it.
Aerospace and WarShip units may only deploy nuclear weapons against ground targets if they have overcome enemy interdiction.
Secondary effects of nuclear warfare
If nuclear weapons were used in any star system during a particular turn, secondary effects may occur: terror and collateral damage. The specific details of each effect is based on the total number of tokens expended.
Nuclear Terror: Nuclear warfare causes serious disruption to civil authority, both in terms of dealing with contamination and with large-scale refugee movements. Nuclear Terror functions identically to the Terrorism intelligence order, with the following modifications:
Each nuclear token used in the current turn: +1 modifier on roll (cumulative)
Any nuclear tokens used against ground targets: +2 modifier
Nuclear weapons deliberately used on civilian targets: +5 modifier
On a particularly high roll, nuclear terror may spill over and effect nearby systems. Note that this effect ignores territorial boundaries and is not limited to systems controlled by the combatants.
Adjusted roll of...
10+ Effects location of battle only
15+ Effects the entire hex
20+ Effects the entire hex and all adjacent hexes
25+ Effects the entire hex, all adjacent hexes, plus the closest capital worlds of all involved factions (or Strana Mechty if the nuclear warfare occured in the Clan homeworlds)
Collateral damage: large-scale nuclear combat within a planet's atmosphere can have additional negative effects. If 5 or more nuclear tokens are used against ground targets in a single system during a single turn, the system suffers damage as if it was subjected to a General Orbital Bombardment order (note that this will destroy space stations). If 10 or more tokens are used against ground targets, roll 2d6 at the end of the turn: on a 10+, the planet is downgraded by one level of development (national capitals become regional capitals with all the negative effects of losing a national capital, regional capitals become control worlds, control worlds become member worlds). Add a +1 modifier to the roll for each nuclear token beyond 10 used during the turn.
Worlds downgraded by nuclear warfare may not be returned to their previous status for six turns.
If a hex is no longer able to support its hex improvements (usually because all control worlds were downgraded to member worlds) those hex improvements are automatically destroyed.
The consequences of using nuclear weapons
Other than the penalties described above, there are not game mechanical consequences for using nuclear arms. It is entirely the responsibility of the players, through roleplaying, to regulate these dangerous weapons.
In addition to these rules, the following rule will take effect in turn 40 but will not become part of the permament rules set.
QuoteStarting nuclear weapons arsenals
Each faction may start turn 40 with one nuclear weapons token (in stockpile) for every PF or capital world they control, or per every 10 homeworld zones they control. The exact disposition of the stockpiled tokens is up to each faction leader to decide, but no more than 25% may be placed in any one stockpile location.
Factions that signed the Ares II convention may decide if they honored the treaty and destroyed all of their nuclear weapons or if they secretly maintained some or all of their stockpiles.
Clan Ice Hellion may choose to start with an additional 10 nuclear weapons tokens, representing the stockpile they captured from the Science Caste.
The Federated Suns and the Capellan Empire may choose to each start with an additional 2 nuclear wapons tokens, representing stockpiles seized from the Republic of St. Ives (even if these factions choose to have destroyed their own national stockpiles under the Ares II convention).
Likewise, the Rasalhague Dominion may decide that the Ghost Bears (Ares II signatories) destroyed their stocks and still start with the former FRR's nuclear weapons stockpile (FRR was not an Ares II signatory and historically did not destroy their nuclear stockpiles).
Simple Resolution "Tax" - feedback neededBased on discussions I have had with LittleH13, we are considering implementing a "simple resolution tax" to incentivize players to roll out their on results. The system would work as follows:
- If players do all of their own rolls in a given battle thread (no GM intervention required), salvage is increased by 10% and battlefield repair is increased by 2%. The 10% salvage bonus stacks with the bonus for playing out the battles in Megamek.
- If the battle is not finished by the end of the turn and requires expedited resolution from the GMs, RP gained through battlefield repair and salvage are lost - this RP becomes FP and is given to the Pirates & Rebels metafaction.
The penalties of course would be waived at GM discretion if the thread was delayed beyond the control of the players or if the delay was due to a GM-controlled faction not responding in time (not that THAT ever happens ::))
There are more then one type of raid. I think there should be a minimum raid size to achieve certain objectives.
===================================================================
Although I hate Nukes, I acknowledge they are part of the game, but think something akin to the the Raid Transit chart should be used for the "Terror" Factor. 8+ you incite Terror, on a 2 or 3, you incite the people into a fanatical fervor.
Congratulations you just spawned a new VIP with it's own Special Ops team to settle their Vendetta against you for nuking everyone they ever loves. "Yvonne ... was such a nice girl once ... and then they Nuked New Avalon..."
===================================================================
I like the idea of the Tax, just going to be a bear to keep extra numbers straight :P
Just as a general question... is the 10+ to salvage a destroyed Warship set too high?
Quote from: Fatebringer on April 28, 2010, 09:42:30 PM
There are more then one type of raid. I think there should be a minimum raid size to achieve certain objectives.
What raid types did you have in mind for putting minimum sizes on? Destroy Resources I can see, but I would think that Recon Raid would cater to small units and Naval Recon already has its own restrictions (mobile or warship units only). Let me know what your thoughts are and we can refine this idea further.
===================================================================
Although I hate Nukes, I acknowledge they are part of the game, but think something akin to the the Raid Transit chart should be used for the "Terror" Factor. 8+ you incite Terror, on a 2 or 3, you incite the people into a fanatical fervor.
Congratulations you just spawned a new VIP with it's own Special Ops team to settle their Vendetta against you for nuking everyone they ever loves. "Yvonne ... was such a nice girl once ... and then they Nuked New Avalon..."
I like the idea of having some more depth to the terror effect, though the rapid accumulation of bonuses makes a 2 or 3 result fairly unlikely I would think... what are your guys' thoughts on having some sort of RP hook/mitigating effect for the "victim" if the nuclear terror roll results in doubles (i.e. 1+1, 2+2, etc)?
===================================================================
I like the idea of the Tax, just going to be a bear to keep extra numbers straight :P
Quote from: Parmenion on April 30, 2010, 03:03:19 PM
Just as a general question... is the 10+ to salvage a destroyed Warship set too high?
Originally it was 9+, and for reasons that are still somewhat unclear to me it was changed to 10+. In either event, I believe it was deliberately made high to 'cull' the FGC warship population, which I think its fair to say is somewhat excessive (for some factions more than any).
What were you thinking was a more appropriate difficulty?
What are your thoughts on having two targets: one (hard, 10+) to salvage the ship in intact enough condition that it can be rebuilt with repair rules, and then an easier on (8+ perhaps?) where the ship can be recovered but has to be rebuilt at full price (i.e. drive core wrecked). This would let factions acquire ships that they don't normally have access to via salvage, but still make it hard to repair severely torn up hulls. Just a thought.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on April 30, 2010, 07:51:05 PM
Quote from: Fatebringer on April 28, 2010, 09:42:30 PM
There are more then one type of raid. I think there should be a minimum raid size to achieve certain objectives.
What raid types did you have in mind for putting minimum sizes on? Destroy Resources I can see, but I would think that Recon Raid would cater to small units and Naval Recon already has its own restrictions (mobile or warship units only). Let me know what your thoughts are and we can refine this idea further.
I think that the minimum for any raid should be 1 but I was specifically thinking about Destroy Resource Raids when posting this. I feel that the unit that comes in should be able to do enough damage to hurt a massive factory complex quick enough to A.) justify shutting it down for multiple cycles, and B.) Get out before the defenders can mount more forces. When I went into Sudeten to attack the Shipyards, I went in with the Max Raid force because RP wise I knew I had only one pass to get this done with all those TH ships in the system.
===================================================================
Although I hate Nukes, I acknowledge they are part of the game, but think something akin to the the Raid Transit chart should be used for the "Terror" Factor. 8+ you incite Terror, on a 2 or 3, you incite the people into a fanatical fervor.
Congratulations you just spawned a new VIP with it's own Special Ops team to settle their Vendetta against you for nuking everyone they ever loves. "Yvonne ... was such a nice girl once ... and then they Nuked New Avalon..."
I like the idea of having some more depth to the terror effect, though the rapid accumulation of bonuses makes a 2 or 3 result fairly unlikely I would think... what are your guys' thoughts on having some sort of RP hook/mitigating effect for the "victim" if the nuclear terror roll results in doubles (i.e. 1+1, 2+2, etc)?
Sounds interesting. I'm sure the GM's will have fun with that if you chose to do it ;)
===================================================================
I like the idea of the Tax, just going to be a bear to keep extra numbers straight :P
Quote from: Parmenion on April 30, 2010, 03:03:19 PM
Just as a general question... is the 10+ to salvage a destroyed Warship set too high?
Originally it was 9+, and for reasons that are still somewhat unclear to me it was changed to 10+. In either event, I believe it was deliberately made high to 'cull' the FGC warship population, which I think its fair to say is somewhat excessive (for some factions more than any).
What were you thinking was a more appropriate difficulty?
What are your thoughts on having two targets: one (hard, 10+) to salvage the ship in intact enough condition that it can be rebuilt with repair rules, and then an easier on (8+ perhaps?) where the ship can be recovered but has to be rebuilt at full price (i.e. drive core wrecked). This would let factions acquire ships that they don't normally have access to via salvage, but still make it hard to repair severely torn up hulls. Just a thought.
I think that having to repair the core is just as costly as trying to build a new one :P The idea I'd heard kinda goes along your rewarding people for playing the game. Keep it 9 or 10 + for simple resolution battles, and drop it to 7 or 8+ for ships that were destroyed in Megamek games.
QuoteI think that having to repair the core is just as costly as trying to build a new one The idea I'd heard kinda goes along your rewarding people for playing the game. Keep it 9 or 10 + for simple resolution battles, and drop it to 7 or 8+ for ships that were destroyed in Megamek games.
What do the rest of you guys think about this? I like how it incentivizes MM play.
I approve that what Fate said.
I agree as well (though I'll need proxies more than ever). Though I like the other idea as well, alowing some repairs being more from scratch. Sure, for the Ravens its more or less a non-event, but for many smaller factions it would be a huge event to be able to rebuild a warship, even if it cost twice the usual price. A poor periphery power (Randis, for example) would look on that as a once in a life time oppertunity if, say, a Farragut got gutted over the world and they could put it back into service. Yes, it would be the same cost to just have the FS build us an Avalon (if they'd sell it, I know, and at what mark up) but the coolness? Not even close. Other ships like Leviathens, McKennas and others might be the same way, plus the Role Play aspect might dictate fixing a ship even if its not economical to do.
The main downside: the more we bring Aero into the fore, especaly using the newest rules as I think we do (and rightly should) the more we highlight the problems in using BattleValue 1 to build out fleets. The relationship between fighters and warships bears no relation to table top play (though its better than it was under AT2 I think), nore does the relationship between difrent sorts of warships. The FWL will be still be saddled with a Heavy Cruser that's valued the same as a Battleship, yet has the combat ability of a distroyer (perhaps I exadurate, but the idea is there), to name just one example that's near and dear to my heart. The disparity between well designed and fleets with well designed ships and poor ones is really highlighted on the table top, which is why I've long argued against using MA untill we got our issues sorted out. Though this rule would not deny poorly made fleets an out, it would offer them a penalty for using it (while also penalizing the opposing fleet, no matter its owner's inclinations).
I love the idea of promoting MA, but I dislike the idea of trying to shoehorn our system into it despite its flaws. I can't offer a fix (other than for us to all go play the other, stalled, game and just start fresh) and I think that perhaps there may not be one at all. But the idea of offering a player a penalty for not wanting to take themselves out of a ballanced situation (you got what you paid for in terms of FP for your RP) into an unballanced one (if one fleet is much better than the other, either because its newer and its builder was expecting MA action while the builder of the older fleet was not, or because it was built with an understanding of the new rules while the other was not, or if one side has access to better ships, or any other thing) is one I am uneasy with. The main solution is to just ride out the life spans of the old fleets and hope everyone just makes equaly optomum fleets for the new rules (using only their best, most combat capable ships in well designed fleets that use the newest rules of our game and of Strat Ops to best effect) to level the playing field, but even then you see a step away from the canon sub-optomum fleets. Why would the FWL have an IC reason to stop making more of anything but the Thera, asside from the fact its useless on the table top? Why would anyone make anything but the best one or two designs?
I don't know how I feel, but there is a conflict here. I suppose I just want to be sure that we can think about it for ourselves.
despite having zero experiance with the aerospace/naval components of MegaMek, i agree that actually playing out the battles should be rewarded as opposed to SimpleRes...i dont have enough experiance with aerospace forces to really make an indepth analysis like IM does.
On a different subject(brought up by Marlin in a PM): Resource Raids. In Marlin's opinion(and mine), the resource raid rules could use a looking at.
The example is the raid against my Falcons on Sudeten...because i failed to defend against said raid, the attacker gained ALL RPs generated in the entire HEX... curious. Not only does the Sudeten hex have 3 RP producing planets, it has 2 different owners(CJF and CSR). Currently, the rules state that a successful raid on a PLANET steals all RP produced from the HEX.
I think that needs to be changed, so that raiding a single Planet will only steal the RPs from that specific planet, from that specific faction(raiding the CJF factories on Sudeten wouldn't give you the resources gain from the Snow Raven shipyards in orbit, for example).
Also, i believe that raiding for resources should need to have a specific target, instead of just "Planet Q"...as i stated above, ground forces raiding a MF shouldnt gain you the resources of the orbital shipyards...unless of course, you send a force of marines to raid the orbital shipyards and their storage themselves. Raiding a planet would gain you the RPs from the planet itself, the MFs and the ICs(being that they are ground-based RP generators). Raiding the planetary orbitals would grant you the RPs from its shipyards.
Discuss? Agree/Disagree?
Quote from: Dave Baughman on April 30, 2010, 09:12:06 PM
QuoteI think that having to repair the core is just as costly as trying to build a new one The idea I'd heard kinda goes along your rewarding people for playing the game. Keep it 9 or 10 + for simple resolution battles, and drop it to 7 or 8+ for ships that were destroyed in Megamek games.
What do the rest of you guys think about this? I like how it incentivizes MM play.
I'm very much in favour of this proposal Dave. MM play should be encouraged, and if we can reward said play by allowing slightly better odds at salvaging, then that is acceptable to me.
So my thoughts is a 9 or better on a 2D6 to salvage a warship if taken out in simres, and a 8 or better to salvage a warship if taken out in a MAero game.
And an 8 or better to salvage a warship
that can be recovered but has to be rebuilt at full price (i.e. drive core wrecked).
Quote from: Dave Baughman on April 30, 2010, 09:12:06 PM
QuoteI think that having to repair the core is just as costly as trying to build a new one The idea I'd heard kinda goes along your rewarding people for playing the game. Keep it 9 or 10 + for simple resolution battles, and drop it to 7 or 8+ for ships that were destroyed in Megamek games.
What do the rest of you guys think about this? I like how it incentivizes MM play.
Dave....This was something that Fate and I had chatted about while playing our last MA game and I am all for it. But again I am a huge fan of MM and MA so of course I would like it.. ;D ;D
The SimpRes thing is a thing I like, in case I did not tell. :P
QuoteThe main downside: the more we bring Aero into the fore, especaly using the newest rules as I think we do (and rightly should) the more we highlight the problems in using BattleValue 1 to build out fleets.
The BV1 vs BV2 has been a big issue for me since being forced to use BV2 when all my forces were calced using BV1. Nowhere is this more evident then in warships.
Example:
A Conqueror is slotted under BV1 as 153634 BV which is 10.25 FP, however when I'm forced to use BV2 for Megamek, it's cost jumps up to 226970 BV or 15.25 FP.
A Luxor is is slotted under BV1 as 225981 BV which is 15 FP, however in BV2, it's cost is reduced to 202539 BV or 13.5 FP.
If two 20 FP Forces met with these ships, the Conqueror would have a 9.75 FP escort to the 5 FP escort of the Luxor per the orders. However, in Megamek the way things are currently being played with BV2, the Conqueror would only have a 4.75 FP of fighters to the Luxor's 6.5 FP. A swing in force power of 75% for the ASF Engagement. Turning a 2:1 advantage in fighters into a 3:4 deficit.
The + or - differentials for each ship varies, I have ships with a positive and negative swing values for BV2. I know it doesn't effect everyone like it does me, but it is rather frustating to base 2/3 rds of ones faction on a sliding scale.
This really makes a difference when determining ship survivability. If the people do not want to do the BV1 conversions that are in the rules, (Wich for Aerotech I have not seen anyone do) then I suggest just bite bullet and change it all over to BV2.
Which version of the rules are we using as "default" for taking warships? Just curious. ;D
Quote from: Jeyar on May 16, 2010, 04:36:04 AM
Which version of the rules are we using as "default" for taking warships? Just curious. ;D
My impression was that going back to even before Sudeten most players had been balancing their naval forces using BV2, since more and more units just don't have official BV1 values.
However, Fate touches on an important issue - there are some major BV fluctuations in WarShips between the two versions. I am considering couple of different ways to implement this fairly for everyone, but if anyone has any methods they particularly favor please feel free to post them.
I am still using BV1. Although units that have none have BV2 then of course. Never paid attention to that, however.
Since the offical rules called for BV1 and never were noted to change, I never stopped using it for my self, so every air unit built in the FWL or Mandrills/Camels in my time was ballanced by that system.
I like the idea of going to BV2 as it is no longer broken and it is what is in MM. I am sorry but going over some other list that is not well organized just for one part of the game does not make any sense. I agree with Dave here and think that BV2 should be implemented for all Warships.
-Josh
Quote from: Iron Mongoose on May 16, 2010, 09:46:13 PM
Since the offical rules called for BV1 and never were noted to change, I never stopped using it for my self, so every air unit built in the FWL or Mandrills/Camels in my time was ballanced by that system.
Eh I'm running the FWL and I really don't mind going back through and re-computing. I've been using BV2 to figure out how and what to build.
Of course I have not been building any of the warship classes you were so its probably how its not come up.
We at least have the benefit of the FWL itemizing down to the type unit so re-computing is just a matter of mathematics and Im on vacation this week anyway.
Hi guys, I am going to post a poll in a second about the BV issue. Please register your opinions there and add any additional comments/nuances as replies.
RE: the extra salvage rule
What happens if one side tries to finish the rolls for a turn but cannot as the other side is stalling?
I think fine tuning is needed. Or a differenciated judgement by the Gms. Also, as I read it, if the fight goes for several rounds and the stuff wont be finished, the Damage control also will be retconned to go to Bandits?
This will cause much headache. (Example, 3 rounds by very big forces: each round there are damage controls, and finally it is not concluded, so the Control sums now have to be taken out again?)
It seems that only the winner benefits from it. Can there be an incentive for both parties?
Oh, and: Transport of Nuclear Tokens: Is it planned that they can only move 5 Hexes per turn even on a LiFu Warship?
Thanks.
Quote from: Marlin on May 23, 2010, 02:23:31 PM
RE: the extra salvage rule
What happens if one side tries to finish the rolls for a turn but cannot as the other side is stalling?
I think fine tuning is needed. Or a differenciated judgement by the Gms. Also, as I read it, if the fight goes for several rounds and the stuff wont be finished, the Damage control also will be retconned to go to Bandits?
Damage control would only go to the bandits A) for rounds that had actually been rolled by the GMs and B) in situations where the players failed to complete the match in a timely manner. The "timely manner" part is important - we wouldn't penalize you guys if it was beyond your control.
This will cause much headache. (Example, 3 rounds by very big forces: each round there are damage controls, and finally it is not concluded, so the Control sums now have to be taken out again?)
It seems that only the winner benefits from it. Can there be an incentive for both parties?
What did you have in mind? I'm open to other ideas.
Oh, and: Transport of Nuclear Tokens: Is it planned that they can only move 5 Hexes per turn even on a LiFu Warship?
Once nuclear tokens are attached to a unit, they move as part of the unit. The 5 hex limit is for when they are moving independently, that is to say when they are still in the process of being delivered.
Thanks.
Ah, excellent. So then they are still moveable.
Hm, incentive for the losing player to still roll it out: I have no real idea. Introduce a Sportsmanship-o-meter. And for 10 points (10 times losing a battle means 1 invasion or such) they get an extra .. whatever. :P Hm.. mightbe too good for 10 rounds but there could be a Member world converted to a Control world? Or an empty Hex gets a Member world?
Both should be for 20 points or more, though.
There are still so many Member worlds, so plenty of opportunity. That is just off the top of my head. Personally I would like it.
You know, I got to thinking.
I know that factions have the option of opting out of the NK option, but since so many other items added on this game had a cultural history bias for their numbers (stats for intel service, number of teams of special ops, size of military, size of aerospace, design options for free tech development, size of ship yards when that mattered and so on - all these items hurting the TC) then why not the NK option? True, this is one of the few times that the TC would finally have extra from a cultural rule addition (the other I would argue is if there was ever a colonization tech tree), but seriously, this is a big element to the game to have made uniform: ESPECIALLY when one element was made nearly impossible to increase (the number of Pfs – which I have struggled to do since the 2nd turn I was part of the game) one element had limits placed on certain factions (local capitols, some factions had caps like the TC), and some elements are really hard to change by a significant percentage (world count – which the TC struggled under multiple systems and paid vast amount for). This has special meaning to me as the Dark will suddenly gain NKs the very turn they become available, the very turn the TC drops some via the rules as they stand now. You KNOW that the Dark will use them. I suppose it is possible for the TC to drive them off Erod's Escape, bu I doubt it with the odds and rules as they are now.
Now please don't think this is whining, I did think long on this. However it is extremely frustrating to have an ability of your faction made to balance other imposed weaknesses, then have it yanked (not the weakness), then have it given to all other factions as an option, and then loose part of that power to a genocidal faction one is at war with, the very turn it comes back. Since other items in the past have been reviewed when pointed out as perhaps allowing for a nudge, I figured I would ask on this important item. Even more focused as the timing and location of the Dark attack hurts so badly with all of this, and the TC has been viewed negatively on this issue, and posted on this issue in the past with an IC viewpoint. Name another faction that has this game?